JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

OffTopic

Surf a Flood of random discussion.
Edited by Stallcall: 5/6/2016 11:05:36 PM
53

The FDA takes on "Vaping."

The FDA should leave the issue alone.

119

The FDA was right to do this.

313

The FDA needs to go farther (but not a ban)

11

The FDA should ban e-cigs.

33

Results/Other

59

May 5, 2016 The FDA released new rules and regulations aimed at the growing e-cigarette industry. The regulations affect both the sale and production of e-cigs and e-cig "juice," which is the solution used for "vaping." Specifically, the new rules broaden the definition of "tobacco products." Now, e-cigs and their juice can be strictly monitored the same way that cigarettes, cigars, and other products are scrutinized. "So what, Stallcall? I don't smoke [i]or[/i] vape. Besides, it's not healthy to have these habits, so [i]it's for the people's own good.[/i]" Think of it as a matter of principle. There a few angles to approach this issue. First of all, let's get some statements surrounding the FDA's decision. [quote]"At last the Food and Drug Administration will have basic authority to make science-based decisions that will protect our nation's youth and the public health from all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, cigars and hookah," said Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the FDA[/quote] That rhetoric should set off a few liberty bells in your head. Protecting the nation's youth? Protecting [i]us[/i]? From ourselves? This is a simple issue of eroding liberty. The FDA is here for more than just spreading information about products. Consumer reports and consumers themselves already have a great handle on that. No, the FDA's job and goal is to regulate, and that's what's coming to the vaping industry. But relax! It's for your own good! We can't let you blithering proletariat idiots hurt yourselves. It's up to [i]us[/i] to keep you safe by prohibiting your actions. That isn't the only issue with this announcement, although the erosion of liberty is arguably the most heinous problem with these sorts of things. Another problem is what we libertarians (and some of the sharper conservatives, bless their hearts) refer to as "crony capitalism." Think of this. Smoking rates in this nation are declining at an impressive rate, and the numbers only foresee continued decline. "Big tobacco" is an industry like any other -- it aspires to grow and compete. So, how do you survive in an arena where you either grow or die, yet your entire consumer-base is shrinking? Trevor Burrus, a research fellow from the Cato Institute, explains the predicament far better than I can. [quote]Like most big companies, big tobacco is stuck in a rut–namely, traditional tobacco. When billions of dollars are invested in infrastructure to produce a single product, it is very difficult to shift that behemoth to a new line of production when the product becomes obsolete or unpopular. Thus, small businesses are often, if not usually, the first movers when it comes to innovation. Blockbuster Video, with a costly commitment to brick and mortar video stores, could hardly have been expected to change its entire business model to rental-by-mail or streaming. By the time the threat of Netflix became existential, it was too late. Many times, when big businesses are in such a situation, one of their last ditch efforts will be to use government to prohibit or hamstring their competitors. Big tobacco has had a similar problem for some time now. They’ve seen smoking rates fall precipitously, and all future projections show smoking rates continuing to fall. Imagine running a business where the demand to “grow, grow, grow” is belied by an inevitable and irresistible decline. So what do you do? Well, you try to expand into new products such as snus and e-cigarettes. Yet big tobacco had the same problem that Blockbuster had with Netflix. They weren’t the first movers on e-cigarettes. As they continued to try to plow a field that had grown barren, small companies began to produce e-cigarettes, and people began to use them.[/quote] The best way to hamstring e-cigs? Get the FDA on their back. By ensnaring e-cigs, these large entrenched companies will be able to catch up to these small businesses. This is a clever trick that large businesses use to stay competitive, and it works across multiple industries. For example, look at what taxi companies are doing to Uber. They've let loose the dogs of the state on them. An even better example is Costco's CEO. He supports a $15 dollar minimum wage. Why? It's not because he's "compassionate." It's because he'll survive it, and his small-time competitors in local areas won't. You want de facto monopolies? Just let the state regulate and you'll have them. TL;DR The FDA is regulating e-cigs. This is an erosion of liberty. Not only that, but huge tobacco companies are jumping for joy at the wounding of their largest competitors. The state is intervening unnecessarily in the market, and it's stifling innovation. All of this for [i]your[/i] protection. Allegedly. Don't you just feel blessed to be protected? Edit: As a nice supplement for some avid readers, here's an interesting source. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/end-fda-drug-monopoly-let-patients-choose-their-medicines

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

View Entire Topic
  • I'm openly liberal and I typically don't agree with your posts, but you got this one right. The FDA is absolutely worthless, and regulating e-cigs and vaping like tobacco products just [i]screams[/i] corruption. Of course this is the same FDA that allows our meat to be pumped full of hormones and steroids, but taking steroids yourself is illegal.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    4 Replies
    You are not allowed to view this content.
    ;
    preload icon
    preload icon
    preload icon